DAWN LORRAINE GREENFIELD v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZSC 155

DAWN LORRAINE GREENFIELD v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2015] NZSC 155

The Court dismissed the recall application because the judgment had already addressed the appellant's contentions and no exceptional grounds for recall were established; the application amounted to an attempt to relitigate the appeal.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] NZSC 155
Parties
Appellant: Dawn Lorraine Greenfield; Respondent: The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
27 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Recall of Judgment
Outcome
Application for recall dismissed
Legal Topics
Recall of Judgment, Residency for Benefits, Finality of Litigation
Administrative Law Social Welfare Law Recall of Judgment Residency for Benefits Finality of Litigation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dawn Lorraine Greenfield

Appellant

The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Recall of Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established grounds for recall of the Court's judgment
  2. 2 Whether the Court overlooked the appellant's contention that she lived in Singapore only for missionary work and retained New Zealand as her permanent home
  3. 3 Whether the application impermissibly sought to relitigate issues already decided

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the recall application because the judgment had already addressed the appellant's contentions and no exceptional grounds for recall were established; the application amounted to an attempt to relitigate the appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for recall dismissed

Orders

  • Application for recall of judgment dismissed